I find that incredibly hard to believe especially since nicotine causes a physical chemical dependency. Sure it is hard for some people to get off of social media, but let's no go overboard here with the social media == big tobacco metaphor.
> If they didn't have a hand in the protests, that seems like a stunning failure on the part of the US State Department to support their own policies
This is nothing but evidence free speculation. What you’re doing is undermining the validity of the protest movement and parroting the line of the Iranian government. It’s disgusting. Take this shit somewhere else.
No my point is that the idea that the protests aren’t organic is deeply fucking ignorant and gross. It’s this whole line of thinking that everything turns on US action in the world, which is how 19 year olds think after they read Howard Zin or some essay by Chomsky for the first time. It’s unserious on top of robbing a lot of brave people of their own agency.
> No my point is that the idea that the protests aren’t organic is deeply fucking ignorant and gross.
Scott Bessent, at the WEF [0], explained that:
> President Trump ordered treasury and our OFAC division, (Office of Foreign Asset Control) to put maximum pressure on Iran, and it’s worked because in December, their economy collapsed, we saw a major bank go under, the central bank has started to print money, there is a dollar shortage, they are not able to get imports and this is why the people took to the streets.
So it is organic insofar as the US is working hard to water and nourish something. This has been a huge push to destabilise and unseat the Iranian regime, the idea that they didn't have some people involved in the protests is hard to countenance. It'd be incompetence of the grossest variety. Technically possible? Yeah. A reasonable prior? No.
It's hardly evidence-free, this stuff [0, 1, 2] has been making international news headlines for months. And the last time the US was involved in toppling Iran they used paid-for protests [3] so it is barely speculative to say they'd do again what worked last time. That is just common sense on their part. If they haven't done that, then people will be fired in the US executive for incompetence because that is the cheapest way to achieve their rather clear goals of rolling Iran's power structures. If you don't believe that they did that, who do you think is responsible for that failure on the US government's part?
It is unfortunate that the US's actions right now undermined whatever validity you feel the protests had. I certainly agree it is disgusting - and also bad for US interests so it is curious why they're doing it. Take it up with them if you have a problem with the idea, I'm not a US general or policy maker.
Lotus root is pretty common in Chinese and Japanese cuisine. I've had it pickled and in a Sichuan dry pot. It's crunchy and takes on flavors pretty well.
Yeah, lotus and ginkgo are both fairly common, I'm sure a lot of us have had them.
Lichen and moss being the most ancient foods makes sense to me based on watching episodes of Alone. You can get calories from that stuff if you're desperate, but it sure doesn't seem a pleasant way to sustain yourself.
Having written a lot of both languages, I'd be surprised if LLMs don't get tripped up on some of Ruby's semantics and weird stuff people do with monkey patching. I also find Ruby library documentation to be on average pretty poor.
> I also find Ruby library documentation to be on average pretty poor.
That surprises me :)
From my time doing Ruby (admittedly a few years back), I found libraries were very well documented and tested. But put into context of then (not now), documentation and testing weren't that popular amongst other programming languages. Ruby was definitely one of the drivers for the general adaption of TDD principles, for example.
I think they're often very well tested, but the documentation piece has always been lacking compared to Elixir.
I used to frequently find myself reading the source code of popular libraries or prying into them at runtime. There's also no central place or format for documentation in ruby. Yes rubydoc.info exists, but it's sort of an afterthought. Sidekiq uses a github wiki, Nokogiri has a dedicated site, Rails has a dedicated site, Ruby itself has yet another site. Some use RDoc, some don't. Or look at Devise https://rubydoc.info/github/heartcombo/devise/main/frames, there's simply nothing documented for most of the classes, and good luck finding in the docs where `before_action :authenticate_user!` comes from.
This might be the dumbest take I've read online in months. Alabama has had 1 case of measles in 24 years. Alabama requires MMR for entry to public k-12 schools and has a 95.3% vaccination rate which meets the accepted threshold of 95% for heard immunity. One minute of searching could have turned this up for you. But you're making up some stupid bullshit about "ow childhood vaccine rates".
Seriously, I can't fathom why you'd think the poorest students in Alabama shouldn't be receiving high quality in person education even in the face of imperfect ventilation. Talk about the perfect being the enemy of the good.
> The vaccination rate for children aged 13-17 nationwide remained high in 2024, but it drops significantly in Alabama as children age. Where about 70% of 4-10-year-olds are up to date on vaccines statewide, only 25% of children 11-18 years old are up to date.
And as I said to the sibling commenter, I’m not advocating doing nothing about absenteeism. It’s perfectly reasonable to criticize a specific method while endorsing its intended effect.
You are advocating precisely nothing. You're criticizing a policy that is helping the poorest children learn to read which unlocks ever subsequent learning opportunity. There is no substitute for in person reading instruction. Your criticism is useless and misplaced. Again, Alabama has had 1 measles case in nearly a quarter century, while they have had a real problem teaching poor kids to read due to absenteeism.
Honestly you take is disastrously stupid. It's this sort of illness safety maximalism that lead to COVID learning loss to begin with.
>the article also mentions a switch to phonics education statewide, but doesn't dwell on how it affected reading scores. (My assumption is that it helps greatly.)
It's actually more than phonics[1], but gets called that because people know what phonics is. Phonology, Sound-Symbol Association, Syllables, Morphology, Syntax, and Semantics are the broad categories, and it's all called structured literacy. This is contrasted with "Balanced Literacy", which was pseudoscience and broadly popular in the 1990s in US teaching. It's highly effective and evidence based.
> What does that mean, "adjusted for poverty"? Reading level is an absolute
Reading scores are SUPER strongly correlated with family income levels in the US. The fact that Alabama does a better job teaching its poorest students to read than Massachusetts does is impressive, particularly given the disparity in funding levels.
This is not really accurate. There was a vary long running debate about phonics which is 1 piece of a larger system (alphabetic coding, phonemic awareness, phonics, spelling, and comprehension) vs Whole language which became popular int he UK and US in the 1980s and 1990s. Whole language is junk pedagogy and doesn't work but was the preferred method taught to teachers for nearly 30 years in the US.
The NYT Daily podcast did an ok episode on this[1].
I'll certainly review the podcast when I have time. Thanks!
I read Pournelle's column in Byte in the late eighties and at times he bemoaned the lack of phonics in modern reading curriculum while also pumping his wife's expensive phonics-based reading software. I ran this by teachers I knew and the general response I got was a confirmation that teachers use phonics all the time, along with some frustration about the rather common misunderstanding, which is at times promoted by people with their own agendas.
As someone who knows teachers but doesn't have kids and has not been motivated to learn a lot about this stuff, I've found that the above pattern often holds. Teachers baffled and annoyed by the misunderstanding of what they're doing with regard to phonics, a somewhat political origin of the critique of reading education from people who are inclined to criticize public education more broadly, sometimes there's a product to sell...
Dealing with "phonics parents" who have bought into this is probably a bit surreal and frustrating. "You've spent time working with your child on lessons outside the classroom and they've displayed improvement? What an important and forgotten education principle you've discovered."
I went through school in the 90s and was 100% not taught any method involving phonics or sounding out words. None of the kids whose parents didn't read to them could read well by 3rd or 4th grade.
Moreover it is factual that universities instructing teachers were for decades only teaching the whole language approach. Implementation varied state to state, but you can literally look at curriculum material used in various states over time and see the shift.
The problem was in fact the reverse of what you're claiming, whole language was brought in by consultants selling a curriculum. This is also easily confirmed.
I also know some teachers, but that's just anecdote and fairly parochial.
> I went through school in the 90s and was 100% not taught any method involving phonics or sounding out words.
I mean... would you remember? Pretty much the only thing I remember about the relevant early years of kindergarten and elementary school is the time I went to school sick and threw up on my desk. (then again, I'm old)
> The problem was in fact the reverse of what you're claiming, whole language was brought in by consultants selling a curriculum. This is also easily confirmed.
I actually have no idea how to confirm that, but I'm sort of willing to take your word for it. By contrast, it's easy to find the phonics lesson products that are sold to parents, like the one I mentioned in my post. Such products used to be pumped on the ads during AM hate radio shows, among other things. Those products were complimentary to the "educators are terrible and public education is terrible and everything done by experts is terrible" message those shows pushed.
To be clear, I don't think those lessons are necessarily useless. Time spent with kids outside class on their education is a positive thing.
> Implementation varied state to state
I'm sure that accounts for a lot of the difference in lesson plans we're talking about, and some states emphasize strong local control as well.
Yes. I distinctly remember sitting through a whole year of other kids struggling to guess what a word was based on context clues in some rabbit related reading book written for whole language instruction. It was painfully slow and boring. I distinctly remember having been taught by my mother to sound out letters, so I didn't have to guess and the teachers telling me not to do it.
> I actually have no idea how to confirm that
Marie Clay is the name you want to google.
> easy to find the phonics lesson products that are sold to parents
The reason there was a market for this is because what schools were doing was not working.
> Such products used to be pumped on the ads during AM hate radio shows, among other things. Those products were complimentary to the "educators are terrible and public education is terrible and everything done by experts is terrible" message those shows pushed.
It's important to step away form the culture war aspect of the "reading wars". There is simply put an evidence based and scientific way to teach reading, and one based on wacky theories fro mt he 1960s that don't work but were popularized by hucksters. The excellent podcast series sold a story has great coverage. https://features.apmreports.org/sold-a-story/ (I wish they published long for text, and its ironic I know, but here we are).
> I'm sure that accounts for a lot of the difference in lesson plans we're talking about, and some states emphasize strong local control as well.
This is to an extent true, but teachers have to get trained on instruction in literacy and for many years colleges were all teaching utter nonsense.
That said, it's important not to over focus on the mechanical part of reading, phonics, because background knowledge and vocabulary are key to using phonics well.
I appreciate the thoughtful reply - thanks! There are some things here to follow up on eventually.
I'm very skeptical that the aforementioned "consultants" made money off of the phonics controversy in a way that was comparable to those selling home lessons, but that's my main quibble at this stage.
> for many years colleges were all teaching utter nonsense.
That must be an exaggeration. It made me realize I actually have no idea how many different streams of methodology there are in education, outside of what we define as the mainstream. Certainly phonics is a part of Montessori education. Ah well, another thing to read about someday.
The way primary teachers are taught is indeed an interesting topic, and its bizarrely not interdisciplinary. You have teaching colleges 100 yards from world class psychology or developmental neuroscience programs and they just don't talk.
My understanding is that almost none of the kids falling under new retention laws are being held back more than twice and very few more than once. Most of these laws also mandate evidence based literacy instruction which are far more effective than what has been the norm for many years.
I find that incredibly hard to believe especially since nicotine causes a physical chemical dependency. Sure it is hard for some people to get off of social media, but let's no go overboard here with the social media == big tobacco metaphor.
reply